WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump told House Republicans Friday that he was urged by Energy Secretary Rick Perry to make the midsummer phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that is now at the center of House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

Trump suggested it was a call he didn't even want to make, the sources said.

The news was first reported by Axios.

Department of Energy Press Secretary Shaylyn Hynes told NBC News late Saturday that “Secretary Perry absolutely supported and encouraged the President to speak to the new President of Ukraine to discuss matters related to their energy security and economic development."

"He continues to believe that there is significant need for improved regional energy security — which additional options for natural gas supply will provide — and this is exactly why he is heading to Lithuania tonight to meet with nearly two dozen European energy leaders (including Ukraine) on these issues.”

Perry is reportedly set to resign from his position as energy secretary in November.

I think we'll be okay.
In fact I think we may be closer to peace with Iran than we have been in quite a long time......
Suleimani had more power than the Supreme Leader, he had the guns....we couldn't have him calling the shots.
I think there will be more to this, Iran intel could/may be involved......

Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue, Built a Shiite Axis of Power in Mideast

The commander helped direct wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and he became the face of Iran’s efforts to build a regional bloc of Shiite power.
He changed the shape of the Syrian civil war and tightened Iran’s grip on Iraq. He was behind hundreds of American deaths in Iraq and waves of militia attacks against Israel. And for two decades, his every move lit up the communications networks — and fed the obsessions — of intelligence operatives across the Middle East.

On Friday, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the powerful and shadowy 62-year-old spymaster at the head of Iran’s security machinery, was killed by an American drone strike near the Baghdad airport.

Just as his accomplishments shaped the creation of a Shiite axis of influence across the Middle East, with Iran at the center, his death is now likely to prove central to a new chapter of geopolitical tension across the region.
Live Updates
Iran vowed to retaliate for the U.S. killing of a powerful general.

General Suleimani was at the vanguard of Iran’s revolutionary generation, joining the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in his early 20s after the 1979 uprising that enshrined the country’s Shiite theocracy.

He rose quickly during the brutal Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. And since 1998, he was the head of the Revolutionary Guards’ influential Quds Force, the foreign-facing arm of Iran’s security apparatus, melding intelligence work with a military strategy of nurturing proxy forces across the world.

In the West, he was seen as a clandestine force behind an Iranian campaign of international terrorism. He and other Iranian officials were designated as terrorists by the United States and Israel in 2011, accused of a plot to kill the ambassador of Saudi Arabia, one of Iran’s chief enemies in the region, in Washington. Last year, in April, the entire Quds Force was listed as a foreign terrorism group by the Trump administration.

Whether Suleimani was a "bad guy" and/or deserved to be taken out is irrelevant. We assassinated a high level person from Iran in a country where we are essentially seen as occupiers. Iraq may throw the US out of their country since they were not notified of the military action.

I agree, US should not be in the business of taking leaders out. But its done, and he was an identified terrorist who killed American troops by many countries. Do you beleive Bin Laden should not have been taken out either?

Iraq did not and eould nevet want Iran involved in their affairs. And I am suspecting Iran insiders where not happy with Suleimani either. We will see. The alternative was not looking good....

Why? Does that really need to be asked when you have two an imbecile on a campaign of distraction going up against a bunch of zealots? US-Iran relations have been close to or on the brink for decades, but this pushes things to the precipice - if not over. At least in the past, there was a State Department that was intact, and a cabinet to advise the Commander in Chief. It's 2020 - the Commander in Chief has all but dismantled the State Department, so there is little to fall back on in terms of diplomacy, there is no voice of reason within the administration, and the CiC has no grasp of history or Middle Eastern politics. War with Iran is a very different proposition to what the US undertook in Afghanistan or Iraq - one that will spill over far beyond Iranian borders.

Why? Does that really need to be asked when you have two an imbecile on a campaign of distraction going up against a bunch of zealots? US-Iran relations have been close to or on the brink for decades, but this pushes things to the precipice - if not over. At least in the past, there was a State Department that was intact, and a cabinet to advise the Commander in Chief. It's 2020 - the Commander in Chief has all but dismantled the State Department, so there is little to fall back on in terms of diplomacy, there is no voice of reason within the administration, and the CiC has no grasp of history or Middle Eastern politics. War with Iran is a very different proposition to what the US undertook in Afghanistan or Iraq - one that will spill over far beyond Iranian borders.

If you feel that you are right and you truly believe this and Iran truly believes this, we will be okay. Think about it.

As fucked up as it may sound, I think Trump knows what he is doing. I know that sounds totally fucked up.
It is really risky what he did, like the greatest risk of our lifetime, but the alternative was Suleimani eventually controlling the region.

Obama and W wanted to take him out, and I believe would have if they knew the fallout would not be disastrous. It may actually have been disastrous with them doing that, because Iran would know they would always "fall back on diplomacy" and Iran would have carte blanche to create trouble.

Yeah, if the Iranian government decides to go rouge, we are in for a disaster of catastrophic proportions. Or....if not, we may be in for a time of peace we have not seen in our lifetimes. Peace, in a tremendously fraught situation, only comes at the brink of war. Iran was not looking to negotiate. Let me correct that, Iran is looking for peace. Suleimani demonstrated time and time again he was not, the farthest from it in fact. Now he is gone from the picture.

Lets check back in 6 months, I truly believe this will be little to nothing in terms of consequences. Iraq and Iran need to flex their muscles right now, and that makes sense, but both countries powers that be I really believe are breathing huge sighs of relief. Yes, diplomats, expats and Western citizens are at heightened risk, but they have ALWAYS been at heightened risk. Did Death to America start last week?

I am not rah-rahing this action of taking Suleimani out. I think it was ridiculously risky. But I see a silver lining.

Also, let me make it clear, I have no love for Trump and I would never vote for him. He is a fucking asshole of colossal proportions, who doesn't give a shit about his own people and has destroyed our future with his tax cuts, rhetoric on immigration and dismantling environmental regulation directives.

Why? Does that really need to be asked when you have two an imbecile on a campaign of distraction going up against a bunch of zealots? US-Iran relations have been close to or on the brink for decades, but this pushes things to the precipice - if not over. At least in the past, there was a State Department that was intact, and a cabinet to advise the Commander in Chief. It's 2020 - the Commander in Chief has all but dismantled the State Department, so there is little to fall back on in terms of diplomacy, there is no voice of reason within the administration, and the CiC has no grasp of history or Middle Eastern politics. War with Iran is a very different proposition to what the US undertook in Afghanistan or Iraq - one that will spill over far beyond Iranian borders.

As fucked up as it may sound, I think Trump knows what he is doing. I know that sounds totally fucked up.
It is really risky what he did, like the greatest risk of our lifetime, but the alternative was Suleimani eventually controlling the region.

Respectfully, the notion to he knows what he's doing is laughable. The timing of this makes it so transparent that this act had little to do with a necessary or strategic course of action - it's all about creating a distraction from the impeachment situation.

He has done nothing but alienate allies over the last three years and made a series of messed up foreign policy moves, all whilst touting an agenda that has seen the US withdraw from spheres of influence it's been crucial in for decades. There is no plan here - no noble pursuit.

In June, Iran shot down a US military aircraft in international airspace. He did nothing. In September, they attacked a Saudi Arabian oil facility. No US action. Now, all of a sudden - there is a mad move. If there was an imminent threat to the US, where was the briefing within government (people at Mar-a-Lago had a sense, apparently) and where is the evidence now? And if there was some masterplan to be foiled, was this really the way to foil it - by removing a commander, who would ultimately be replaced? This was not about saving lives (American or otherwise) and it wasn't about regional peace. This was a political move (domestic), but it's clear that it will work counter to both of those things.

There will have been plenty of reasons and opportunities to take Suleimani out. Yes, the world is a better place for his assassination, but at what cost? As you say, the risk of it has been too great for administrations that functioned fully (whether one agreed with the policies or not). This man who is a known liar and a laughing stock on the world stage and his corrupt administration is hardly a the source of a silver lining. And I don't think it will take anywhere close to six months to see what chaos will unfold. So far today, he's spouted off on Twitter about striking Iranian cultural sites - which goes against the Geneva Convention and would essentially be a war crime if carried out. That's not knowing what he's doing. He's withdrawn from the fight against ISIS in order to reposition those forces - leaving things wide open for ISIS. That, too, is not a sign of knowing what he is doing.

For 41 years, US-Iranian relations have been a clusterfuck, but successive administrations have avoided direct conflict. It's impossible to see how this reckless act won't tip the balance towards disaster.

I think it's worth paying attention to the bigger picture. The Iran / Saudi proxy-war in the middle east is really a proxy war between the United States (and allies) and Russia and (sort of, sometimes) China. The money for Hezbollah and Hamas comes from Iran. The money for rebels in Yemen comes from Iran. The money for rebels in Syria comes from the United States. The money for rebels in Libya and elsewhere, also comes from the United States. The money for the Taliban originally came from the United States, to fight against Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Souleimani was considered a terrorist by Americans because he was the one masterminding a lot of Iran's management and funding of the groups that the United States has been fighting in Iraq and elsewhere. But ultimately these are supported by Russian and Chinese weapons. Consider this: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/m ... i-killing/

Trump's decision to act on an existing plan to take out Souleimani now is ill-timed and petty, since, frankly, as far as I can tell he has seemed to be less of a war hawk than Hillary Clinton (and famously didn't like Bolton's extreme hawkishness). Trump is also not known to be interested in long-term strategic thinking of the sort that would be required for a full-scale invasion/war. He seems to be much more interested in having bargaining chips / cards to say (stupid) things like "Obama killed Bin Laden, but I killed Souleimani -- much worse... big. Big bad guy. Bad guy. Much worse than Bin Laden." Which, frankly, is probably why they've timed this intentionally for this election season.

Long-term, I'm not sure what to think, but it's pretty clear that the United States can't continue burning money on perpetual war while China keeps improving at the rate it has been. It's a great example of a "Red Queen Paradox", where you have to keep running to stay in the same spot, and accelerate if you want to move forwards at all. The United States under Trump has not been, unfortunately, in most cases, running at all.